Trade for review:
Designated Drinkers trade J.J. Barea
Gainesville Celtics trade right to swap own 2013 1st rounder with Designated Drinkers' 2013 1st rounder
If I understand this deal correctly, DD is trading Barea for the right to swap #1s with a team it finished behind last year?
Designated Drinkers finished ahead of the Gainesville Celtics last year.
Also, as a point of clarification: there's a review period for these deals, right? But rosters still need to be cut down before this evening, right?
In other words, a GM can't have 17 players, with the understanding that a trade scheduled to go through tomorrow will get them down to 16.
We do have a 24-hour review for all trades. Because we're butting up right against the deadline, as usual, I think that we should operate on the good-faith assumption that all deals will go through.
If, however, a trade gets vetoed by the rest of the league, then I think any teams who will need to adjust cuts accordingly should have a grace period to do so.
What do other people think?
I'm going to object.
Rules are rules, and as indicated last year, trades need to be assessed based upon the rules in effect at the time. We haven't bent rules in the past, and it's patently unfair to do so here. If there was one thing the league was crystal clear on last year, it's that rules shouldn't be modified retroactively.
The deadline and the trade review period have been in place for quite some time. If people procrastinated and missed out by doing so, it's on them. It's unfair to allow some teams to carry 17 players past the deadline.
hmm... didn't see any suggestion of bending the rules...
I'll just cut to 15 players if that's necessary --- but I can't speak for Designated Drinkers I guess...
For arguments sake --- not that I could ever win one with Roy
---
during the season if teams make a trade 1 min. before the trade deadline that's unbalanced -- say this same deal -- there is still 24 hr. review period. The Yahoo software asks me who I want to waive (since taking on a 17th player isn't allowed) assuming the deal goes through. If it doesn't I don't end up waiving that player.
I don't see why that wouldn't apply here (again i guess I can't speak for what DD would do...)